Obama On Guns
By: John Aloysius Farrell
2/12/2008 - 6:02pm

John Aloysius Farrell's blog Login or register to post comments Printer friendly
version

Did Barack Obama really mean it when he said, in Idaho this month, that he won't be
taking folks' guns away?

Does he believe, as Western voters may have assumed, that when it comes to guns
there is a basic Second Amendment right to own firearms?

Apparently not.

Last night, a DC-area television station, WJLA, and the Politico.com website carried
an interview with Obama on the eve of the Maryland-DC-Virginia primaries. You can
read it on the Politico.com Web site. It contains a bit of classic political
waffling - very disappointing from the candidate of change.

Here is the excerpt. The DC handgun ban they refer to is total. The District of
Columbia and Obama's hometown Chicago are the only two big cities with such absolute
prohibitions: You cannot keep a handgun in your home. Not even to protect your
family.

The law is being challenged, and the issue is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.


WJLA: One other issue that is of great importance to the people of the district
here, is gun control. You said in Idaho here, recently, that "I have no intention of
taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that
it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?


OBAMA: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think
it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership
and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people - law-abiding citizens use if for
hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a
violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think
there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal
handguns off the streets, we are going to trace more effectively, how these guns are
ending up on the streets, to unscrupulous gun dealers, who often times are selling
to straw purchasers. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms
of background checks for children, the mentally ill. Those are all approaches that I
think the average gun owner would actually support. The problem is, that we've got a
position, often times by the NRA that says any regulation whatsoever is the camel's
nose under the tent. And that, I think, is not where the American people are at. We
can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second
Amendment and people's traditions.

Notice, first, that Obama ducked the question.

He does not even try to reconcile his support for the district's outright ban on
handguns with what he said in Idaho. Instead he talks about local jurisdictions
taking measures to crack down on the possession or use of illegal handguns, and
having tougher background checks etc.

(It is also worthy to note that, when it comes to certain kinds of guns - like
assault weapons - Obama supports not just local, but federal prohibitions.)

Obama's previously-stated position (if he still believes it) on the DC ban is
worrisome. As a general principle, there are huge chunks of the federal agenda that
can be turned back to the states and cities. The crying need for federal intrusion -
the South's despicable treatment of African-Americans - has faded in the course of
the last 50 years. If California or Colorado or Massachusetts now want to lead the
nation on health care, climate change, education reform or other issues, more power
to them.

But there are some constitutional protections - like gun ownership - that are
specifically included in the Bill of Rights. I don't believe that the District of
Columbia, or California or any other jurisdiction has the right to ignore the First
Amendment and ban churches or rallies or newspapers or free speech on the Internet.
And what goes for the First Amendment goes for the next one.

Until the Supreme Court rules differently, I have to believe that the DC ban runs
afoul of the Second Amendment. It is just too broad a regulation.

Obama feels differently. Which is fine, except that the Obama campaign is making the
argument that his ability to beat Hillary Clinton in more conservative states like
Idaho and Nebraska and Colorado means he'll be the stronger Democratic candidate in
November.

If nobody knows who you are and what you stand for, in the rush of a primary season
you can breeze into Omaha or Boise or Denver or Missoula and be all things to all
people. But when folks get to know you, and find out you've been leading them on -
tailoring your positions for political advantage like Mitt Romney - then
disillusionment and cynicism set in, and the payback at the polls can be harsh.

And what about those "folks" back East who believe in gun control? They thought
Obama was on their side. What comfort can they take from the mush he gave WJLA?

Hillary Clinton was also interviewed on WJLA last night. She listed her support of
the assault weapon ban, and of the old Brady handgun control law (both dead now,
killed by GOP lawmakers and judges) as two of many controversial measures she has
fought for in her career. There is a reason, beyond her personality, that
Republicans really hate her, she said.

The transcript of her interview is also available at Politico.com.

Here is an excerpt.


POLITICO: Right. You talked about taking on the Republicans. And I think a lot of
Democrats are proud of the fact that you and Bill Clinton did prevail in some of
your fights against Republicans.


But some of them were also frustrated that they had to defend you against what they
perceived as self-inflicted wounds, in some cases. And a lot of Obama supporters are
saying, Look, we don't want to just win the fights. We want to get past this
constant fight in America, and that he's in better position to end this cycle of
fight and retribution with the Republicans.


SENATOR CLINTON: Well, John, I think it depends upon what you think the fights were
really about. You know, I never thought they were personal; I thought they were
about the positions we took.


You know, standing up and fighting for universal health care drew a lot of incoming
fire. Taking on the NRA over the assault weapons ban and, you know, the Brady bill,
that was certainly not a popular thing to do.


Standing up and fighting for fiscal responsibility and getting the deficit down, you
know, trying to get a balanced budget and a surplus, I mean, there's a big
difference between infighting fights over nothing, you know, just for the sake of
fighting, as the Republicans have often done to score political points, you know, to
really get that partisan advantage, and taking on the fights that are worth fighting
over.


You know, it is important that we cooperate whenever we can. But there are a lot of
principles and values at stake here.


You know, when President Bush, coming off his ‘04 win, came in and said, We're going
to privatize Social Security, I'm really proud that I was one of the leaders who
said, No, we're not going to let that happen. You may have this new capital because
you're now the re- elected president, but this is a fight worth having. We're not
going to let this occur.


So when I hear Senator Obama talk about that, I wonder which fights he wouldn't
fight. Would he have not fought to get to a balanced budget and a surplus and help
create 22 million new jobs? Would he have not fought to get assault weapons off the
street and get them out of the hands of, you know, criminals and gang members?


You never hear the specifics. It's all this kind of abstract, general talk about how
we all need to get along.

I want to get along, and I have gotten along in the Senate. I will work with
Republicans to find common cause whenever I can, but I will also stand my ground,
because there are fights worth having.


Universal health care is a fight worth having. Senator Obama has decided it isn't.
He won't present a plan for universal health care. That's a big difference between
he and I, and it's a big difference between me and the Republican Party.